Pages

Monday, August 15, 2011

I’m not in a good mood. My personal life is full of PO'ed people, I’m PO'ed by work, I’m stressed out, and I’m too distracted to read or sleep. I want something to tear apart, to grind to pieces, to throw into the inferno and cause great weeping and gnashing of teeth. I want to shatter a DVD, to burn a cartridge, to tear a book from its binding and tell its creators and publishers to go screw themselves.

So it is to my great chagrin that I do none of these things, because the book I am reviewing today is Prince of Thorns by Mark Lawrence. I might be able to burn down one or two trees, but the forest is so damned solid I’m liable to take an arrow to my neck before I get the chance to set it ablaze with a torch made of bone and tar. A reference to something, I’m sure, but why anybody else would use such a poor choice of torch is beyond me.

Prince of Thorns is about the teenaged leader of a group of bandits of the worst sort. He also happens to be heir to the throne of a small kingdom- one that happens to be one of a hundred fighting over the scraps of what used to be a great empire. If you haven’t quite pieced it together, this is a piece of Medieval Fantasy. Prince of Thorns makes use of the Fantasy aspect of its setting to set aside a new era of history, new kingdoms and fiefdoms to fight over. It’s historical fiction without any of the boring details, not the least of these “sacrifices” being the distinguishing between English, French and Spanish. We’re very clearly somewhere in Europe, somewhere between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance… or are we?

When Jorg- the titular Prince- sets off an atomic bomb with the expectation of releasing a poison among the inhabitants of a great castle- we find ourselves in that odd category that’s not quite post-apocalyptic, but only because after the great, thriving civilization was wiped out, enough time passed for an entirely new and somewhat familiar one to take its place. Give up trying to place this on our own timeline yet? Good, because that’s precisely the sort of attempt this book denies you.

The existence of empowered shamans, necromancers and monsters (later proved to be the result of radiation-poisoned water), provide the Fantasy setting, one that plays little role in the beginning of the novel (other than that I’ve mentioned earlier) but one which it becomes very clear is going to play a much greater part when Jorg discovers its true extent himself. It’s sort of like a story where Boba Fett spends his life looting and pillaging and killing those such as Jabba the Hutt, until he realizes Darth Vader and the Emperor are really out there pulling strings.

As for the characters, well, Prince Jorg isn’t quite as noble as the aforementioned bounty hunter, and he’s had an even more tragic past. I mentioned he led a group of bandits- by the tender age of thirteen, he turned himself from his quest of vengeance for the rape and murder of his mother and brother to become the most vicious and deadly of a group of bandits that includes a man that could take Hagrid in a no-holds-barred hand to hand fight- and was previously led by his bigger, smarter brother.

The novel opens off with a shock-value sequence designed to tell you exactly what you’re looking at. If you can’t stand to see Jorg glory in the murder of innocents, the pillaging and burning of their village, and the raping of their daughters, this novel isn’t one for you. And it’s not one for your kids. No, seriously… your fifteen year old isn’t ready for this, no matter what he or she just told you.

I partially say this because of the glorification of violence. It’s very clear that nobody thinks Jorg is a good person- not the author, not Jorg himself, not even his love interest, who wishes to see him publicly disemboweled. Nevertheless, Jorg is a tragic figure, and his tenacity is of the sort that you empathize with him and want to see him succeed. The problem here lies with any reader who starts to emulate characters who have admirable traits such as Jorg’s unlimited tenacity. To put it frankly, this novel in the wrong hands could turn a small town into a blood bath. If you found yourself buying a red lightsaber because Darth Vader was an inspiration to your aspirations of badassery, you’re liable to be taken in by this character more than is healthy. This is a testament to the author’s skill, and I don’t hold that against him- I just advise actual restraint from the consumer, a commodity that is rarely found in modern days.

Descriptions are vivid, and characters are, if not fleshed out at the very high level that I prefer, very distinct. More often than not, you’re very vividly aware who it is that Jorg is killing. Because more often than not, characters die, and more often than not, Jorg is what kills them. Some characters survive, after a fashion, and some characters are killed by other people, but by and large, you’re reading this book to see Jorg killing people. It’s a cathartic novel, that just happens to have some quiet messages about free will, determination, enough morals to make you ask a question, and so forth. Our anti-hero is a learned man, but he doesn’t have the patience to deal with most of this; like most protagonists used to action, his response to the possibility of somebody manipulating him is to kill. Since the story is told from his point of view (first person, in fact), it’s no surprise that the narration is much along this same path. The only downside to this approach is that one or two issues are touched upon in only the most shallow manner: mainly the fact that Jorg doesn’t bother to make a connection between the rape of his mother and the ones he commits and permits (thankfully off-screen), and the fact that racial relations are touched on, but Jorg doesn’t really have any thoughts on them.

Prince of Thorns is a fast read, and if you grew up listening to Slim Shady and other forms of likable horrible people, it’s your kind of book. There’s nothing redeeming about it, but that’s where the fun lies. Obviously, the appeal of this book lies only for a very specific subset, mainly adult males who can overlook horrendous actions on the part of their protagonist, but for this specific subset, I think you’re going to be looking forward to the rest of the trilogy when you finish this.

The Man in Black is a regular reviewer at Fantasy & SciFi Lovin' News & Reviews. More of his content can be found at Man in Black Reviews.

My experience has been that women are kind of half-and-half on this book. I know I struggled with the beginning and have talked to other women who felt the same way. But then there are quite a few who aren't bothered by it. I'd like that MIB offered some caveats for the reader so they can know going in whether it's likely to match their preferences.

his caveats appear to be "the appeal of this book lies only for a very specific subset, mainly adult males" and a requirement for liking 'Slim Shady' ... Clearly neither of these are actually true - which was my point.

Having tried to read the book, I don't really think he's wrong. Like I said, anyone reading the review will get a good idea of whether or not it's something they want to try-- which is the point of a review in the first place. Besides, the caveats will likely intrigue potential readers and make them *more* likely to check the book out, not less.

Mazarkis: I certainly offered no personal offence with my "speculation"...lol I just know that books with certain subject matter are a bit too much for me...Rape...for me...is difficult to read about. It's something I can only handle in small doses...simple as that. Therefor I'm very happy to have the heads up :D

But ... what is the headsup you've got? Rape is only present in Prince of Thorns in minute quantities. I think there may be as few as four lines of 'off stage' description of one event. And yet there's a small clutch of of people going around implying it's some kind of rape manifesto. It's nonsense.

"Rape manifesto?" I haven't seen that. As a woman I can definitively say it's disturbing to me-- so all caveats are fair in my opinion. Women are by-and-large going to have different reactions to the subject matter than men.

I also don't think it does any good to beat the subject to death. I think the review does the book justice (it is a recommendation after all-- big picture). Overly defensive reactions to reviews usually turn readers off in my experience.

I'm bewildered why you think that statement would go unchallenged by the simple facts available on the page. There's a strong difference between what you would like to see and what is there, a strong difference between who you would like to be reading this book and who is...

I'm bewildered why you're so dead set on forcing me to defend one line in my positive review while claiming that others are exaggerating "four lines" (your words) as though they represent the entire novel.

And off of the page you linked to (because, as neither the author nor publisher of this book, it's not worth the time it would take to analyze 45 pages' worth of opinions), 16 males, 8 females, and 7 people of unidentifiable origin (without reading further into the commenters or their posts, anyway) read this book. Which means that if every website or name that I can't interpret to a gender was a female reader, that's still a 50/50 split.

As much as I appreciate feedback, I put enough energy into reviewing and defending my negative opinions that I don't intend to spend hours more defending my positive ones. Thank you for understanding.

I agree that forcing a reviewer to defend a review is counter productive to promoting the book. I have chosen not to review books after seeing the kind of discussions here-- it's honestly not worth the hassle.

I think I've tried to be very fair to the book here on the site. I've had my reservations, but I gave it to another reviewer just to be fair. Then, I did a giveaway. Now, we have a positive review that offers some valid caveats that gets a bunch of grief.